ABSTRACT
Interventions addressing the sexual health need of HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) in Latin America are scarce. We adapted and evaluated GPS, a group-based intervention led by peers, developed using the Information-Motivation-Behavioral (IMB) model and motivational interviewing (MI). We used McKleroy et al framework to culturally adapt GPS to MSM living with HIV infection in Colombia. Then, a one-armed pilot trial examined changes in depressive symptoms, loneliness, self-efficacy for engaging in sexual risk reduction behaviors, sexual sensation seeking and sexual compulsivity at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 3-month follow-up. These results were complemented with semistructured interviews with participants 3 months after the intervention. GPS was identified to be culturally acceptable with few changes in materials and exercises. Facilitators showed high levels of adherence and fidelity to MI principles. Seven of 11 eligible participants finished the intervention; GPS positively influenced self-efficacy for condom negotiation, depressive symptoms, and condomless anal sex with partners of unknown HIV status. Exit interviews revealed that GPS was well-designed, relevant, facilitated discussion of sex in a nonjudgmental manner, and helped make positive changes in participants' sexual lives. These results provided preliminary evidence of an intervention to address sexual and mental health of MSM living with HIV in Latin America.
Subject(s)
HIV Infections/psychology , Homosexuality, Male/psychology , Sexual Health , Colombia , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Infections/ethnology , Homosexuality, Male/ethnology , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Motivational Interviewing , Pilot Projects , Risk-Taking , Sexual Behavior , Sexual PartnersABSTRACT
Cuando los trabajadores de la salud o las personas con escasos conocimientos de bioestadística se involucran en investigaciones, especialmente de tipo cuantitativo, aplican técnicas estadísticas con las que pretenden analizar la información obtenida como resultado de un proceso de recolección de datos en cuya plantación no se hizo previsión del tipo de análisis que se podría necesitar para que los resultados fueran consecuentes con las hipótesis que desde un principio se ligan con todo proceso de indagación empírica, sistemática, controlada y reproducible -investigación- que busca resolver un problema especifico. Por ello, cuando se trata de interpretar los resultados de un estudio se pueden presentar errores respecto a la validez de los resultados obtenidos, especialmente cuando de manera empírica se quiere establecer el nivel de significación y, además, aclarar lo relacionado con el error que se produce cuando se acepta como válido un hallazgo que se origina por no haber formulado la hipótesis de trabajo (Error de tipo I).
Usually health professionals and people with little knowledge of statistics when involved with quantitative research they are faced to make statistical techniques to fulfill the data analysis resulting from a previous data collection. Generally they state hypothesis and later the information analysis can support the evidence in favor or against such hypothesis. In that point commonly they are faced to confusion when they try to interpret p value and type I error. The concept of p value and significance level will be approached in this paper and the difference among them will be cleared.